get_computation

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving metadata and status, but does not cover critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation (implied but not stated). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with potential complexity.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage, behavior, and parameter nuances, which are needed for full context, though the output schema may help with return values.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description specifies that the tool retrieves information 'by its ID', which clarifies the purpose of the 'computation_id' parameter beyond the schema's basic type. Since schema description coverage is 0% and there is only one parameter, this added meaning compensates well, though it could detail ID format or constraints.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'retrieve' and the resource 'metadata and status information for a specific computation', making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_computations' or 'get_result_file_urls', which reduces the score from a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_computations' for multiple computations or 'get_result_file_urls' for result details. It lacks explicit context or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.